University of Pitt looking into the case Feb 3, 2017 0:21:08 GMT -8
Post by Ricardo on Feb 3, 2017 0:21:08 GMT -8
May I proffer that these arguments are largely immaterial [?].
What is of pertinence is,whether Law Enforcement are persuaded that an investigative lead,is ''on offer''.
With the Zodiac case,in particular,it is as close to unlikely,as could be,that Handwriting will ever play a part in a Court of Law.But it can be used to lead or persuade detectives,in their investigations.
When it comes to ''Forensics'',''Partials'' apply in the same way.Again,possibly helpful to investigating detectives - but of no use in a Court of Law.
''Partials'' may be apply to ''complete'' DNA results,but are deemed ''contaminated''.Forensics that are permissible evidence,will have to be accompanied by sworn evidence on how it was obtained.Even then,a Judge may decide to take issue,and instruct a jury,accordingly.
As it transpires in this recent ''discovery'',through the work of Ms.Dresbold,she,as a Graphologist,is ''not'' convinced - but believes that Law Enforcement should take a look.
Perhaps,''we'' should just await any further developments [?].
We await any further developments and I hope there will be a follow up.
If it happens that the Person of Interest is ruled out as a suspect, then I hope that they will make an announcement.
If it happens that the Person of Interest cannot be ruled out as a suspect, then I hope they will make that information known, too.